3&.epublic of tbe .

J}bihppine5'
$>upreme QI:ourt
:fflanila

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a

Resolution dated March 18, 2021 which reads as follows:

"G.R. No. 229917 (Jose Entigoy Andaya, Alex De Guzman,

Arnold Crisostomo, Marvin Abando And John Anthony D.
Lazona, Petitioners, v. National Labor Relations Commission, The
Manila Peninsula Hotel, Inc., Sonja Vodusek Vecchio, FVA
Manpower Training Center And Services, and Florante V. Alviz,
Respondents.) - Before the Court is a Petition for Review 1 under Rule
45 of the Rules of Court, which seeks to reverse and set aside the
Decision2 dated 09 November 2016 and Resolution3 dated 16
February 2017 of the Court of Appeals (CA) in CA-G.R. SP No.
144705. The dispositive portion of the assailed Decision reads:

WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant

petition for certiorari is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED. 4

Antecedents

The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC)

summarized the factual antecedents as follows:

- over - seven (7) pages ...

163-B2

1
Rollo, pp. 3- 22.
2 Id. at 23-38-A. Penned by Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with the concurrence of Justices Leoncia
R. Dimag iba and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob.
3
Id. at 39-40. Also penned by Justice Ramon R. Garcia, with the concurrence of Justices
Leoncia R. Dimagiba and Marie Christine Azcarraga-Jacob. The dispositive portion of the
Resolution reads:

" WHEREFORE, premises cons idered, the instant Motion for Reconsideration is hereby
DENIED.

SO ORDERED."
4
Id. at 38.
RESOLUTION 2 G.R. No. 229917
March 18, 2021

Complainants Jose E. Andaya, Alex G. De Guzman, Arnold

S. Crisostomo, John Anthony D. Lazona and Marvin C. Abando
were engaged by respondent FVA Manpower Training and
Services (FVA) as waiters/barmen at the Manila Peninsula Hotel.

On 11 June 2014, complainants Andaya, De Guzman,

Crisostomo and Abando filed a complaint against the respondents
for illegal dismissal with a prayer for reinstatement, backwages,
regularization, underpaid money claims (salaries, overtime pay,
holiday pay, holiday pay premium, rest day premium, service
incentive leave, service charges, 13 th month pay), moral and
exemplary damages, and attorney's fees. On 14 July 2014,
complainant Lazona filed a complaint against respondents for the
same causes of action, except illegal dismissal.

They alleged that they are regular employees of the

respondents The Peninsula Manila, Hongkong & Shanghai Hotels
Ltd. (Hotels). They further insisted that complainants De Guzman,
Crisostomo and Abando were illegally dismissed and should be
entitled to moral and exemplary damages and attorney's fees.

Respondent Hotels, and Sonja Vodusek, countered that no

employer-employee relationship existed between them and the
complainants. The latter are rather the employees of their
contractor, FVA Manpower Training Center and Services. Thus,
they are not entitled to regularization, backwages, and money
claims.

Respondents FVA Manpower Training and Services and

Florante Alviz argued that the complainants are their employees,
that they are operating as a legitimate job contractor, and that they
did not dismiss the complainants. 5

Ruling of the Labor Arbiter

In his Decision dated 15 May 2015,6 Labor Arbiter Adolfo C.

Babiano (LA Babiano) dismissed the consolidated complaints for lack
of merit. It found FVA Manpower Training Center and Services (FVA)
to be an independent contractor, and is deemed to be the employer of
herein petitioners, who were merely assigned at the Manila Peninsula
Hotel to fulfill FVA's contractual obligation under the Service
Agreement between FVA and the Hotel. In addition, LA Babiano
pointed out that petitioners failed to establish their dismissal from
employment.

- over -
163-B2

5
Id. at 251-252.
6 Id. at 203-216.
RESOLUTION 3 G.R. No. 229917
March 18, 2021

Ruling of the NLRC

On appeal, the NLRC dismissed the case for lack of merit and
affirmed the Decision of LA Babiano in its Decision7 dated 16
December 2015. It held that herein petitioners are not employees of
the Manila Peninsula Hotel but ofFVA, which is a legitimate business
entity with substantial capitalization. The finding of LA Babiano that
herein petitioners Andaya and Lazona were still employed with FVA
at the time of the filing of the complaint was not disputed. The records
show that petitioner Abando was under a subsisting employment
contract with FVA at the time he filed his complaint. Meanwhile, the
engagement of petitioners Crisostomo and De Guzman merely expired
with the cessation of FVA's Service Agreements with its clients, and
thus they were waiting for their new work schedules.

The Motion for Reconsideration was denied in the Resolution

dated 17 February 2016. 8 Hence, petitioners filed a Petition for
Certiorari9 under Rule 65 of the Rules of Court before the CA.

Ruling of the CA

The CA dismissed the Petition for Certiorari and affirmed the

NLRC Decision. It held that based on the records and the evidence
presented by the parties, FVS is a legitimate job contractor and that it
hired petitioners on various dates. It also held that petitioners failed to
establish by competent evidence that they were dismissed from
employment.

The Motion for Reconsideration was denied in its Resolution

dated 16 February 2017. Hence, the instant Petition.

Ruling of the Court

The petition lacks merit.

The Petition is substantially factual

- over -
163-B2

7 Id. at 250-257. Penned by Commissioner Gina F. Cenit-Escoto, with the concurrence of

Presiding Commissioner Gerardo C. Nograles and Commissioner Romeo L. Go. The
dispositive portion of the Decision reads:

"WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Appeal is DISMISSED for lack of merit. The
Decision of Labor Arbiter Adolfo C. Babiano dated 15 May 2015 is AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."
8 Id. at 279-281 .
9
Id. at 282-296.
RESOLUTION 4 G.R. No. 229917
March 18, 2021

Preliminarily, the Petition calls for re-evaluation of evidence

which is not appropriate in a petition for review under Rule 45 of the
Rules of Court, where the Court's jurisdiction is limited only to errors
of law. 10 In Bank of the Philippine Islands vs. Mendoza, 11 the Court
instructed that:

"As a general rule, the Court's jurisdiction in a petition for

review on certiorari under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court is limited
to the review of pure questions of law. Otherwise stated, a Rule 45
petition does not allow the review of questions of fact because the
Court is not a trier of facts. Case law provides that "there is a
'question of law' when the doubt or difference arises as to what the
law is on a certain set of facts or circumstances; on the other hand,
there is a 'question of fact' when the issue raised on appeal pertains
to the truth or falsity of the alleged facts. The test for determining
whether the supposed error was one of 'law' or 'fact' is not the
appellation given by the parties raising the same; rather, it is
whether the reviewing court can resolve the issues raised without
evaluating the evidence, in which case, it is a question of law;
otherwise, it is one of fact. Where there is no dispute as to the
facts, the question of whether or not the conclusions drawn from
these facts are correct is a question oflaw. However, if the question
posed requires a re-evaluation of the credibility of witnesses, or the
existence or relevance of surrounding circumstances and their
relationship to each other, the issue is factual."

Although there are several exceptions to these rules, exceptions

must be alleged, substantiated, and proved by the parties so this Court
may evaluate and review the facts of the case. Parties praying that this
Court review the factual findings of the CA must demonstrate and
prove that the case clearly falls under the exceptions to the rule. They
have the burden of proving to this Court that a review of the factual
findings is necessary. Mere assertion and claim that the case falls
under the exceptions do not suffice. 12

The recognized exceptions are: (1) when the findings are

grounded entirely on speculation, surmises or conjectures; (2) when
the inference made is manifestly mistaken, absurd or impossible;
(3) when there is grave abuse of discretion;(4) when the judgment is
based on a misapprehension of facts;(5) when the findings of facts are
conflicting;(6) when in making its findings the Court of Appeals went
beyond the issues of the case, or its findings are contrary to the
admissions of both the appellant and the appellee; (7) when the
findings are contrary to the trial court; (8) when the findings are

- over -
163-B2

10 Galan v. Vinarao, G.R. No. 2059 I 2, I 8 October 2017 [Per J. (later CJ) Leonardo-De Castro).
11 G.R. No. 198799, 20 March 2017 [Per J. Perlas-Bernabe].
12 Pascualv. Burgos, G.R. No. 171722, 11 January 2016 [Per J. Leonen].
RESOLUTION 5 G.R. No. 229917
March 18, 2021

conclusions without citation of specific evidence on which they are

based;(9) when the facts set forth in the petition as well as in the
petitioner's main and reply briefs are not disputed by the respondent;
(10) when the findings of fact are premised on the supposed absence
of evidence and contradicted by the evidence on record; and (11)
when the Court of Appeals manifestly overlooked certain relevant
facts not disputed by the parties, which, if properly considered, would
justify a different conclusion. 13 None of these are present in this case.

Findings of facts of the

administrative and quasi-
judicial bodies are accorded
respect and finality especially
when affirmed by the Court of
Appeals

Moreover, findings of fact of administrative agencies and quasi-

judicial bodies, which have acquired expertise because their
jurisdiction is confined to specific matters, are generally accorded not
only respect, but finality when affirmed by the CA. Such findings
deserve full respect and, without justifiable reason, ought not to be
altered, modified, or reversed. 14

On this score, We find no reason to grant the petition. We quote

with approval the following disquisitions of the CA:

"After a judicious review of the records and the evidence

presented by the parties, We agree with the Labor Arbiter's finding,
as affirmed by the NLRC, that indeed xx x FVA is a legitimate job
contractor. FVA was able to substantially prove that it was
registered with the DOLE as specifically required by Department
Order No. 18-A, Series of 2011. It is likewise registered with the
DTI and has been issued by the City Government of Manila a local
government permit to operate business. It has an independent
business and provides bartending, waitering and other services to
various hotels and clients like the Hyatt Hotel and Casino Manila,
Westin Philippine Plaza, Mandarin Oriental Manila and Pearl
Garden Hotel. It has a substantial capitalization of P3, 103,309.51
and earned a gross income of Pl2,693,703.37 as shown in its
audited financial statement as of December 31, 2013. It has a valid
service agreement with private respondent hotel for the supply of
bartending, waitering and housekeeping services among others. xx
x FVA likewise provides the uniforms, lockers and identification
cards of petitioners. Moreso, the fact that xx x FVA is a legitimate

- over -
163-B2

13 De Castro v. Office ofthe Ombudsman, G.R. No. 192723, 05 June 2017 [Per J. Caguioa].
14 Diversified Security Agency, Inc. vs. Bautista, G.R. No. 152234, 15 April 2010 [Per J. Peralta].
RESOLUTION 6 G.R. No. 229917
March 18, 2021

job contractor has long been established in the case of Oregas vs.
NLRC, where FVA supplied valet parking and door attendant
services to therein respondent Dusit Hotel Nikko.

By the same token, We sustain the NLRC in ruling that

petitioners' real employer is xx x FVA and not private respondent
hotel.xx x

In the case at bench, the records indubitably show that

petitioners were hired by x x x FVA. Petitioners admitted that they
were recrnited and employed on various dates by xx x FVA. They
themselves filled-out and signed their respective Job Contractor
Application Form and employment contracts providing for a fixed
period within which they would be assigned to FVA's clients. A
perusal of the said documents further show that petitioners were
likewise assigned to other hotels like Holiday Inn Hotel,
Renaissance Hotel, Heritage Hotel and others. They were engaged
by FVA for a fixed term of five (5) months. The records further
reveal that petitioners were being paid their wages by x x x FVA.
They are likewise included in the payroll of FVA and the latter
even pays their contributions to the SSS, Philhealth and Pag-ibig.
The power to discipline and dismiss its employees are also being
exercised by FVA through their assigned representatives at private
respondent hotel. The most important element of control was also
being exercised by FVA through its assigned supervisors Gemma
Penalosa and Richard Bartolay. x x x.

XXX

We likewise sustain the NLRC in finding that there was no

illegal dismissal in this case. We are not unmindful of the rule in
labor cases that the employer has the burden of proving that the
termination was for a valid or authorized cause; however, it is
likewise incumbent upon the employees that they should first
establish by competent evidence the fact of their dismissal from
employment. x x x The records are bereft of any indication that
petitioners were prevented from returning to work or otherwise
deprived of any work assignment by FVA. As aptly found by the
NLRC, petitioners Andaya, Lazona and Abando still has subsisting
employment contract with x x x FVA. On the other hand,
petitioners De Guzman and Crisostomo who are deemed to be
fixed-term employees, cannot be considered as illegally dismissed.
Their respective contracts of employment had already expired on
June 15, 2013. The relationship between the parties is governed by
the employment contract which petitioners voluntarily signed
before being deployed at private respondent hotel. There was no
showing that they were forced or pressured into affixing their
signatures thereon. The terms and conditions thereof specifically
the stipulation that their employment was not permanent, but would
expire at the end of the fixed period should thus be considered as
binding upon them. 15

- over -
163-B2
15 Rollo, pp. 34-37.
 RESOLUTION 7 G.R. No. 229917
March 18, 2021

In fine, petitioners have failed to show that the CA committed

reversible error that would warrant the exercise of this Court's
appellate jurisdiction.

WHEREFORE, the Petition is hereby DENIED. The Decision

dated 09 November 2016 and Resolution dated 16 February 2017 of
the Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. SP No. 144705, are AFFIRMED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

LIBRA
Divisio Clerk ofCourtl1.l,ir

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO

Deputy Division Clerk of Court
163-B2

Atty. Levy Edwin C. Ang Court of Appeals (x)

Counsel for Petitioner
Room 523, BPI Office Condominium
150 Plaza Cervantes, 1000 Manila
Manila
(CA-G.R. SP No. 144705)
NOGRALES LAW OFFICES
Counsel for Resps. The Manila Peninsula
Hotel, Inc. and Ms. Sonja Vodusek
22/F, PSE West Tower, Exchange Road,
Ortigas Center, 1605 Pasig City

Public Information Office (x) CABREDO LAW OFFICES

Library Services (x) Counsel for Resps. FYA Manpower Training
Supreme Court Center & Services and Florante V. Alviz
(For uploading pursuant to A.M. No. 2126 Angel Linao Street, Malate
No. 12-7-1-SC) 1004 Manila

Philippine Judicial Academy (x) NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS

Supreme Court COMMISSION
PPSTA Building, Banawe Street
Judgment Division (x) 1100 Quezon City
Supreme Court (NLRC NCR Case Nos. 06-07094-14; and
07-08699-14)
(NLRC LAC No. 09-002418-15)

UR

,,,,